The fifth of NovemberThe gunpowder treason and plot.I know of no reasonWhy the gunpowder treasonShould ever be forgot.”

That was technically yesterday (Mountain Standard Time), though I when I started this piece I hadn’t gone to bed yet. Today is officially election day. This post is intended to bring a few things to everyone’s attention. Many people already know these things. Some don’t. Either way, as usual, I will put a little of my own spin on it.

First on the election.

On the presidential elections (I still have not voted yet today, but I think I will make it to the polls before they close), voting doesn’t really effect the election outcome unless you are in a battleground state. So I hope most people will be voting their consciences. Voting, however, does send a message, and that message for each voting block is the same REGARDLESS of the outcome. What I mean by this is, if you support someone but vote for someone else, odds are that not only will that vote have no effect on the outcome (unless, as I said, it is a tight race) in terms of who the next president is, but you are also keeping people from knowing what you truly believe. Voting to send a message therefore has much more of an impact than voting to put someone in power.

And now, the rest of the post on ongoing and attempted takeovers of the liberty movement by 1) Occupy Wall Street (this was only a minor and unintended offense on their part), 2) the rank and file of the Tea Party (originally a good thing, but now more or less synonymous with the GOP), and 3) the Kochtopus (who in my conspiratorial mind own Jesse Benton, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and a good portion of many Republican, Tea Party, and Libertarian groups, organizations, and individuals, though I do not allege that everyone employed are receiving funds from the Koch Brothers is automatically a blind tool).

407 years ago this night was the Gun Powder plot where a group of English Catholics attempted to Assassinate James I of England. All religious considerations aside (I am not a Catholic), it was an act against oppression and thus a tradition has come down to us today, mainly in England, to celebrate the anniversary. I won’t go into any details about how the Fifth of November, AKA Guy Fawkes Day is traditionally celebrated, but I do want to call attention to the man it was named after. But not the historical man because that is fairly boring. It is to the fictionalized, mythologized, romanticized, and later Hollywoodified version that I will point you. Guy Fawkes is a Robin Hood-like hero in these later accounts, and much the same he has captured many hearts and minds. Like Robin of Loxley, he stands against the existing order, the status quo, and evades the unjust authorities, but perhaps unlike him, the whole idea of tyranny. What more could I ask for?

We’ve all seen the Guy Fawkes masks, the ones that come from the movie V for Vendetta. The first people that used them as activists, perhaps to the surprise of many, were in fact Ron Paul supporters. Not the hackers group Anonymous, and not the Occupy Wall Street movement. Just like with the Tea Party movement.

Speaking of Anonymous, Guy Fawkes, and Ron Paul, check out this “leak” and the video below.

Ron Paul raised $4.3 Million on Guy Fawkes Day in 2007. Why a similar money bomb didn’t occur in 2011 is probably due to former Campaign Manager Jesse Benton’s fear and loathing of anything resembling disorder or fringe or passion.

Most Ron Paul supporters had their suspicions of Jesse Benton. Some smelled a rat early on. Other reserved judgement until it was too late.

Adam Kokesh was one in the former category. [Warning: Foul Language!]

He regarded Jesse Benton and Campaign for Liberty (under Benton’s leadership at the time) with disdain from early one, at first for what seemed to be personal reasons, but later what turned out to be a dead-on instinct.

This all reminds me of an historical episode that occurred between another Jesse Benton, and a man who might be considered Ron Paul’s role model against the Central Bank, President Andrew Jackson.

Campaign for Liberty was perhaps the first real Tea Party organization, although in a sense Dick Armey’s Freedom Works (2004), the Koch Brothers’ Americans for Prosperity (2004) Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform 1985), and the Koch Brothers’ Citizens for a Sounds Economy (1984) all deserve honorable mention.

Even Murray Rothbard can be said to have had a role, albeit a small one.

And speaking of Murray Rothbard and the Kochtopus, I suggest you read some of these links I have done many hours worth of research looking for. I have read a number of them myself. There is some really juicy stuff in there. And it should be required reading for any liberty minded person worried about the corrupting influences to be found in politics, even in the libertarian movement. I don’t know entirely what to make of it all other than that the Koch brothers have done many great deeds for which they should be praised, but all for what appear to be the wrong reasons, reasons, which have also caused them to do a great deal of more sinister things. Perhaps enough to outshine their more praiseworthy endeavors. They are corporate fascists and elitists no less than George Soros and Warren Buffet. They just have a different strategy. Perhaps the most clever and dangerous.

One of the most interesting things (and there were many) I garnered from reading these is the Kochtopus’ love for Central Banking, despite their roots in Austrian Economics. Evokes memories of Alan Greenspan. And why the Koch Brothers put stock in Herman Cain. And why Rick Perry was derided by so-called conservatives when he called Ben Bernanke a traitor. And why their oh so brief ally Ron Paul is so hated by them and theirs anymore.

And it reminds me further of several graphics I have seen floating around on the various End the Fed sites and blogs. A stream of consciousness post like this would be seriously remiss without tying everything together with a few related images.

Please don’t think I’m going all occult on you or anything (I do admit that I came across some pretty dubious sites looking for some of these images). I just really like mythology and history and metaphors and analogies.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Let me start off by saying that I would like nothing more than to be able to support a Liberty candidate and vote for him this November. I have tried so hard, many times to get myself in the mood for Gary Johnson. Each time I was kidding myself.

You should know that you are free to comment and argue with me, but the purpose of this post is not necessarily to convince people not to vote for Gary Johnson, but just to further explain why I am not going to do so. This may seem unnecessary, but seeing as how this blog had hitherto been given the expressed purpose of supporting Ron Paul, in its own limited way, and that I will be ramping up the volume and frequency of posts, I feel obliged to explain why none of these posts will be featuring support for Johnson’s candidacy, and will instead be more issue-oriented (with the occasional hit piece on Obama or Romney).

So. What exactly is my problem with Gary Johnson? I’ll tell you. It’s not that he’s not a nice guy. It’s not that I doubt his sincerity. It’s not that I would prefer Obama or Romney. And it’s not just the very few (or perhaps there are more than I initially anticipated) things that he and I disagree on. But it is, in part, the things he, at times, seems focus on. I can’t listen to the guy without him blah-blah-blahing about gay marriage, taxing marijuana, flip-flopping on everything from heroin to NAFTA, and plenty of other meaningless distractions, all the while that they are mostly distractions he is still going in the wrong direction or not near forcefully enough in the right direction. Sure, he brings up the wars, the Pentagon budget, says he wants to bring the troops home, audit the fed, things like that. And the strange thing is I don’t necessarily disbelieve him. I just think that these things, the real issues, the real issues, the real issues, would be put on the back burner, or more so than they should be. It’s the economy stupid! And as long as you are going to talk about and do things that have virtually nothing to do with the economy, the very least you could do, if you want my support, or my vote, is talk about and do these things in a way I can agree with.

I have said that I would vote for Gary Johnson if he would address some of my concerns satisfactorily. When I originally listed them, I was mainly waxing rhetorical. In my mind, I was (and still am) certain that Gary would answer almost none of them to my satisfaction, which is why those particulars (re-listed below) were ever sticks in my craw in the first place.

What is it about Gary that makes me lose hope of he and I ever seeing eye to eye on these things?

I have seen and heard enough interviews where these things were touched on. None of the interviewers were anywhere near as precise on these issues as I was with my list. Nor would one think there should be a need for them to be so. You see, libertarians make a name for themselves being very rational and analytical about things. So when some radio host or some high mucky-muck in the freedom movement/free market blogosphere asks Gary Johnson, straight up: Do you support humanitarian interventionism? (just one example!), and he opens his mouth and fumbles but you think he’s eventually going to say something rooted in some clause of the Constitution or some fundamental libertarian axiom, and then he basically says “yes,” without hardly a qualification (and then one usually appealing to emotion), and changes the subject to his stance on the current wars, which are winding down and unpopular anyways, and therefore happens to be the same stance as 70% of the American public, who, and I hate to sound like an elitist, are some of the most vacuous and bloodthirsty people on the planet, I am forced to choose between two options in terms of what I can think of him: He is either weak willed (worse yet, a coward) or he is a complete ignoramus. And let me tell you, I am not sure which one scares me more: Is he afraid of alienating the average Libertarian Party member who is a bleeding-heart socially liberal utilitarian minarchist (nothing necessarily wrong with any ONE of those things, or even a mixture of two or three, but I am not the biggest fan of the overall combination), or does he really know less about basic libertarianism, noninterventionism, and economics than some kids I know who aren’t even old enough to vote?

There have been times when I listen to him speak and after a while I am just cringing in dreadful anticipation of what answer he is going to give next. Don’t get me wrong, the man is a great orator when he gets a softball interview, which is just about all of them these last two months because his handlers won’t let him talk about the real details of the real issues with real people anymore. They already milked that cow and she’s bone dry.

Or maybe I shouldn’t blame it all on his handlers, maybe I should blame it on the fact that because Ron Paul is out of the picture and this is an exciting election, the media, even its libertarian wing, has chosen to fawn rather than vet.

Anyways, lets delve into those particulars again:

1. Does his pro-choice stance mean he would uphold the Tenth Amendment or ignore it and further erode it?

Gary has stated that he thinks each state should decide. This is a stance I can live with and may even be the best of all possible political alternatives. Except…

Johnson is really in no position to alienate the pro-life vote, so it would stand to reason that he would bring up the states’ rights argument, that he says he adheres to in this case, just a tad more often. Unfortunately for him, he usually just says that he PERSONALLY BELIEVES in a woman’s “right” to choose up until the fetus is “viable.” He needs 15% polling nationwide to get in the debates with Obama and Romney, something I would have hoped for even if I was not going to vote for him, just to get some of his alternative views in the public square (his opposition, though at times mild, to things like the Federal Reserve, suspension of habeas corpus, the income tax, ObamaCare, executive orders, undeclared wars, budget deficits, entitlements, welfare, eminent domain, the UN, bailouts, gun control, etc.). I suspect after alienating a good portion of his potential base, the Ron Paul supporters, he will not get into the debates, let alone win the presidency. We basically have three pro-choice guys running. One is Planned Parenthood’s bosom buddy. Another has ties to abortion mill disposal companies, and has had every conceivable stance on the issue (except this one). And the other, while opposing public funding of abortions, and possibly in favor of states’ rights on the issue (thereby appointing judges who might overturn Roe v. Wade), still would not make life a priority in any way, shape, or form because a) he personally is pro-choice and b) he is against states’ rights on the marriage question and who knows what else.

Here is one article I read that says it is okay to vote for a personally pro-choice candidate because the president, not even through the courts, has absolutely no effect on policies regarding abortion: Abortion, Religion, and the Presidency by Laurence M. Vance. Mr. Vance is essentially arguing that you can vote for the lesser of two evils if the evil in question has no policy consequence. I would buy that argument if I knew for certain that that same candidate would reduce abortions through some indirect mechanism (states’ rights), if given the opportunity to do so, even if he is unwilling or unable to use more direct mechanisms (executive order, signing a law banning abortion, advocating an amendment banning abortion, or appointing judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade).

There are three ways to implement a states’ rights solution to abortion. One is to overturn Roe v. Wade by appointing pro-life or pro-states’ rights justices. Another is to pass a law taking jurisdiction over abortion away from the courts, thus invalidating Roe v. Wade and any other federal court’s decision in the past or future that overturn state laws against abortion. Both of these ways are direct. The third way is simply by refusing to prosecute or punish the states that choose to ban abortion, even if Roe v. Wade is technically still in effect. The President can direct his Attorney General, Justice Department, and other relevant officers to not go after states that nullify federal law or court decisions. Johnson has not clearly stated that would do any of these things. And until he does, no pro-lifer should even consider him. I hope he clarifies whether he would do these things or not. There are so many issues that he has made unclear or conflicting statements on.

2. Does “humanitarian intervention” mean things such as Letters of Marque and Reprisal and Spanish Civil War-type volunteerism (which is illegal these days) or does it mean more undeclared or unjust wars, unilateral or otherwise?

He still has never gone into detail on this, besides, just recently, specifically as it pertains to Kony. I mean, are we just supposed to make the assumption that he’s alright just because of the L that comes after his name? I thought that sort of thinking was what gave us the two-party duopoly! My gut instinct is that Gary really would send in taxpayer-funded US troops. He would probably go to Congress and get a Declaration of War first, and would probably define the mission, engage the enemy, win, and then pull out. Probably. This would therefore be a “legal” war, but by no means a “just” war. Ron Paul (yes, I know, he is not running anymore, but that has nothing to do with the point I am making) on the other hand would only go to Congress if we were attacked first, and then presumably in an even handed way. And if Congress on its own, with no prompting from the Commander-in-Chief, was to unjustly, but legally Declare War, Ron Paul as Commander-in-Chief would probably weigh the two following options: Resign or carry it out as quickly and painlessly as possible. Gary, so far as I can tell would weigh these two options: Carry it out because there is a humanitarian reason to do so or don’t carry it out because there is no humanitarian reason to do so. And need I remind you that George W. Bush campaigned on a humble foreign policy and gave us two quagmires and a world ready to explode. How much more should we be wary of someone who has stated they would go gallivanting across the globe in search of monsters to destroy (or am I wrong in thinking that is the corollary of using trained killers in a humanitarian fashion)? All other things being equal of course.

Gary Johnson did say, and I think this is only a recent thing as a result of pressure put on him by the Ron Paul vote, that he “think[s] Kony could have been more effectively dealt with by letters of marque and reprisal.” And while I could go on about why Letters of Marque and Reprisal are preferable to sending in the troops, the reality is that volunteers acting on their own, expecting no aid from the US government, whether their mission succeeds or fails, would be even better, especially in a situation that has nothing to do with US national security. Letters of Marque and Reprisal would have been the perfect thing to go after Osama bin Laden with, but in the case of Kony, this would be no different than the president having private mercenaries doing his bidding, taking out whomever he deems unfit to continue living. That kind of power in the hands of Johnson would probably not be of too much concern, but to establish that precedent would be unwise, especially in light of the fact that assassinating United States citizens, no charges, no trial, is an accepted prerogative of the executive office these days.

3. When he says, “end the war on drugs,” does he mean, “decriminalize all substances” on the federal level and let the states and individuals decide for themselves, or simply, “legalize marijuana, which we can then tax and regulate like we do alcohol and tobacco,” well?

He means the second one, which I am fundamentally in disagreement with. I don’t think the Federal government should even be regulating alcohol and tobacco.

4. Is his love for liberty rooted, at least partially, in a hatred for injustice and tyranny, or is it more from a utilitarian, the-greatest-benefit-to-the-greatest-number philosophy?

I already know the answer to this. And as with most other questions, it is the second answer.

5. Should the federal government only prosecute and punish crimes actually listed in the Constitution, or just about any crime that may be a real or perceived problem?

You know, counterfeiting, piracy on the high seas, treason, and international crimes? Gary has never even touched on this issue, one way or the other, to my knowledge. This is a much bigger deal than most people give credit for, and though it is related to the drug issue, is a lot broader than that.

6. Will states be allowed to ignore laws they deem unjust or should the federal government take measures to prevent this, whether through the courts, the legislature, or the executive branch?

Gary has spoken about nullification, but this seems inconsistent with his view of marriage. He wants a nation-wide law providing for one, all-inclusive definition of marriage, all the while maintaining separation of church and state, but why bother with such laws (which, like provisions of the Civil Rights Act, are in clear violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, as well as the Fourteenth, which is often misinterpreted in the same way that the Thirteenth is to give the children of illegal immigrants automatic citizenship, that is to superficially uphold the letter of the text through modern interpretation while completely ignoring the spirit of the text through original intent) on the one hand, when you support nullification on the other? It makes no sense!

7. Is getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with the Fair Tax part of a broader plan to eliminate all taxes unnecessary to the legitimate constitutional functions of government, or is it an end in itself?

I’m serious. Taxation is theft. Period. But I have further questions: Does getting rid of the income tax mean abolishing just the IRS and the tax code, or does it include abolishing the Sixteenth Amendment? This question has not even been asked, let alone answered. Given that fact, I would say it is because Gary does not want to waste time on politically inexpedient policy issues that bear no immediate fruit when all he has to do is say something popular. When most people hear abolish the income tax, they just assume you mean permanently. And perhaps in your heart of hearts you do, but that doesn’t cut it. Johnson has basically said (and here is the link) that he would push for the Fair Tax whether the 16th Amendment was gotten rid of or not, which to me is plain stupid. If you are not for completely abolishing one tyranny before you “replace” it with another, how can you guarantee that further down the road there won’t be both at once? You can’t. Especially not as the Government’s need for revenue increases, exponentially no less, with each passing year, thanks to our national debt and unfunded liabilities and the high interest rates that are inevitable in the future. In my book, bad things should not be replaced with slightly less worse things. Once you have gotten rid of the bad thing, that should be the end of it. If that is an impossibility, it should still be the stated goal. Why compromise before you are even asked to? As H.L. Richardson wrote in Confrontational Politics, ”When the liberals step dialectically backward, the conservative attack must be intensified, not diminished.” This means don’t stop pushing just because you have gained some ground. It applies equally to all corners of the political compass, not just “liberals” and “conservatives.”

And those are my concerns and observations, and they are subject to revision. In any case, I do not think Gary Johnson will win, so as I have said before, the only reasons for someone who otherwise is not enthused to vote for him, are, to help him get matching funds, which in my opinion is not a worthy goal unless you plan on handing them back directly to the Treasury or better yet the taxpayer; or to send a message. Sending a message is a great idea. Unless of course, it is the wrong message. And what message would I be sending by voting for Gary Johnson?

I would be sending a message to the Libertarian Party that they can go ahead and keep sending in watered down libertarians and I will loyally support them because I don’t mind watered down libertarians and enjoy sending messages that are about how much I like sending messages rather than actually getting a real point across.

I would be sending the Republican Party a message that says I would vote for whoever they nominate as long as he has more in common with Gary Johnson than he does Barack Obama, which, though that hypothetical person would absolutely be better than Romney or Obama, is absolutely not true and therefore not a message I want to send.

I would be sending the Democratic Party a message that says I would vote for whoever they nominate as long as he has more in common with Gary Johnson than he does Mitt Romney, which, though that hypothetical person would absolutely be better than Obama or Romney, is absolutely not true and therefore not a message I want to send.

I am neither willing nor able to send any of these messages, all of which would emanate from a vote for Gary Johnson. This obviously does not apply to those who would be voting for Johnson for other reasons (like agreeing with his positions) or who think that sending messages that they may not entirely agree with is their civic duty or a dire necessity.

And what weight does winning (whether you define that as winning the election, changing the game, or simply as sending a message) have against violating one’s conscience? If I were slightly more of a compromiser, and if I thought Gary Johnson could win, something I did briefly think was possible, perhaps that would be heavy enough of a thing, for me to consider going against my conscience and making that expedient choice. But so long as there is no likely reward (a win), why would I, hypothetically more of a compromiser, even bother sticking my neck out? It would be pointless.

That is only a hypothetical; I like to think that I would not compromise like that, even with a chance at success. So if I find out on November 7th that Gary Johnson could have been a game changer or even a winner had he just one more vote, I will still not regret the decision I made to write-in Ronald Ernest Paul, M.D.

And in case you don’t believe me, here are some links that went into my decision:

Share this:

Like this:

Now that the Ron Paul campaign is over (thanks to those cheating scumbags at the RNC), this blog will be dedicated to my interests and my ideology. In other words, not much is going to change. The R3volution was an educational and entertaining experience for me, and to the extent that it is still going I hope to learn more things and have more fun.

Currently I am endorsing anyone but Obama and Romney, not because I have hope that someone else can or will win, but because the vote is more legitimate as a means of protest than it is as a means of government. Write in Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson, or Mickey Mouse, check in that box for Gary Johnson or Virgil Goode, put a giant X through your ballot, go shopping and stimulate the economy, or stay home and read a book on economics or political philosophy. Sit on the couch and watch TV for all I care! Even if nobody physically counts your vote (including non-votes) and even if the media doesn’t report the numbers, your collective non-cooperation won’t go unnoticed. Most importantly, vote your conscience.

I plan not only on evading the Democratic side of the ballot, DOWN THE LINE, this November, but to a large extent, the Republican side. There are very few decent people running for any office in either major party. And the few that are decent, on occasion, picked the wrong election cycle to show their bad side. So if there is any worthy person who lost in the primary, or maybe a Libertarian Party nominee or two, that’s who I’m casting my lot with.

Ron Paul 2016! Until then, lets make an effort to end the brainwashing and the hysteria.

God Bless.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

I hereby endorse (not that it is worth much) anyone but Obama and Romney. It really doesn’t matter who the person is that one uses to fill in that blank, because they are not going to win even under favorable circumstances. The same goes for if one chooses to leave it blank. All votes, or non-votes, that are rooted in the dictates of one’s conscience and principles are of equal validity. The only truly wasted vote is a conscious decision for one or the other of these two fascists for exactly that reason: a fascist is a fascist by any other name, Republican or Democrat. Of these vote-wasters, only those that decide at the last second for whom, of the two fascists, to pull the lever are wasting to a smaller degree, because it is only worth the time they spent thinking about it. Only of the others, who actually spent time, perhaps months, years even, rationalizing away the fascist qualities of one or the other major candidate, can it be said that their vote was a complete and total waste. These people are the most blatant fools in an electoral system which happens to be jam-packed with them.

But I am not here to castigate sheep (though there is more of that below) or take a look at the similarities between Obama and Romney, because these have been done all too often almost anywhere you care to look in the libertarian blogosphere, ad nauseam. Besides, once we throw out every position Romney has or has had contradicting or contradicted by another position he has or has had, there is nothing left for us to look at. It’s not even comparing apples (Obama) and oranges (Romney) anymore, because all we are left with is the rotten, worm-eaten apple. What I am going to do is get into the more pragmatic side of things, having already accepted the premise that Romney and Obama are the same, though I am sure that this too has been done before.

WHEN THE CHIPS ARE DOWN

If Obama gets reelected, it’s four more years of Democratic fascism until we have another chance, perhaps an even better one than in 2012, to put a principled leader in the White House. But given the GOP’s track record and the LP’s lack of influence, I wouldn’t count on it.

If Romney gets elected, it’s four to eight more years of Republican fascism, which will then be followed by another four to eight years of Democratic fascism. Those arguing to elect Romney because we can’t handle four more years of tyranny are essentially arguing for eight to sixteen more instead.

BEGINNER’S LUCK

There is little doubt in my mind that whomever the next president is, he will be unable (and in most cases unwilling) to prevent the impending fiscal and monetary collapse. If it is a Democratic president, more ammo for Republicans, be they genuine conservatives or corrupt establishmentarians. And if it is a Republican president, more ammo for the “progressive” Democrats who brought us Obama in the wake of Bush’s (whether it is directly attributable to him or not) housing bubble collapse and subsequent recession.

This latter scenario would not be so much a problem if the Republican that got in there actually did the right things before taking the heat for the collapse he did not cause. But such is not the case with a Romney presidency.

Whereas a Ron Paul presidency, or even a Newt “fundamental, but sleazy” Gingrich, Rick “uhhh…uhhh” Perry, Michelle “gives me a migraine” Bachmann, or Herman “would you like to pay for that pizza with fractional reserve fiat monopoly notes…okay, that will be $9.99” Cain presidency*, given the right context and the right pressures and the right advisors would still get the blame, but might at least have done something right in the meantime. Regardless, these latter four Republican’s foreign policies would be enough to make me sit the election out were any one of them to be the nominee. Which brings us back to Romney.

UPPING THE ANTE

Romney’s foreign policy will likely be worse (though substantially the same) than Obama’s. Not just because almost every new president is automatically worse in every sphere or endeavor than the last, regardless of what they truly say or believe or attempt to do, but because he is, by his own admission, very hawkish. He has been critical of Obama where the president is deemed weak on foreign policy and has even praised Obama on the rare occasion in which the president is seen as doing things the proper neocon way.

BLIND BET

There are those out there that AGREE that Romney and Obama are virtually the same on their policies. I mean besides George Soros, the socialism-supporting crony-capitalist who endorsed them both. They tend to go with Romney because “at least he is not a radical”. And what in the hell is that even supposed to mean? I’ll tell you what it means.

They want an acquisitive, confused liar to take away their liberties more than they do an ideological, narcissistic liar, which really is no more than a matter of taste. They would rather be stabbed in the back in the dead of night than face a frontal attack in broad daylight that is at least defensible against. They want to vote for the guy they feel less threatened by, for reasons that are not sound, so that they can sit back and pretend everything is fine for another four years. They are not emotionally or mentally stable enough to follow their own conscience and judgement. They can’t handle short term deprivation for long term yield. A confusing mixture of subjectivity, fear, laziness, self-doubt, and low impulse control. That’s what it means!

*Sorry, Rick Santorum, your forehead is just too shiny to ever be president.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

It seems that Willard Mitt Romney will be the Republican Party nominee. The RNC and GOP establishment have too much to lose, have spent too much time and money and favors, to allow any other outcome, barring some sort of miracle. The Paul Ryan pick was meant to shave off as many libertarian-leaning Republican voters as possible, in spite of the fact that Ryan, by and large, is either a phony or a lightweight.

Romney’s hard delegate total is 1463. He has a plurality in 43 states. For Santorum it is 234 and 6. For Paul it is 122 and 3. For Gingrich it is 137 and 2. 1144 delegates are needed to win the nomination and five states are needed to be entered into nomination. Romney and possibly Santorum will be nominated because they have the required plurality in at least five states. If just 320 of Romney’s delegates decide not to vote for him, a brokered convention is guaranteed. 320 seems like a lot. But think about it: how many of those are not Romney supporters? Its only 22 percent of the total. And if only two states that give a plurality to someone besides Paul cooperate with with the three Paul plurality states, Paul’s name could be entered into nomination, in spite of the RNC’s efforts to destroy Ron Paul’s pluralities in Maine and Louisiana, which border on the criminal.

But here are some factors that could turn things around. But because most of them are long shots, they probably won’t. Besides, not all of them are compatible with all of the others.

1. No delegates are bound. While, technically each state Republican Party can make its delegates sign pieces of paper promising to vote for Mitt Romney, these “contracts” are not necessarily enforceable in Tampa. And even if they are somehow punishable under state law in the home state of the delegates, I can’t imagine the legal ramifications being all that great. Furthermore, Federal law, RNC rules, and the courts forbid compelling people to vote for a candidate, although once again, there may be ramifications such as getting kicked out of the GOP or being discredited and then replaced with more “cooperative” alternate delegates.

2. Some of Romney’s delegates and possibly some of the alternates are in fact Ron Paul supporters. Some or all of these may have been required to promise to vote for Romney, but once again, there are loopholes that could get them out of doing so without getting punished too bad.

3. I suspect that most of these Ron Paul supporters, whether they are “bound” to Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum, would be willing to not vote for whom they are “bound” even if the consequences are great.

4. Gingrich and Santorum delegates are still to vote for Gingrich and Santorum, unless they are released. If they are released, most of those that aren’t closet Paul supporters will probably vote for Romney. But there is hope: many non-Paul supporters, particularly in the Santorum camp, dislike Romney almost as much as the Paul folks do.

5. There are 100-200 delegates still in play, depending on which count you use. They are not “bound” to anyone yet. These delegates could change any number of things, for better or for worse.

6. A brokered convention will not hurt the GOP’s chances in November, which at the moment, are dismal. It will, however, hurt Mitt Romney and the establishment. And frankly, they deserve it. Party unity is all fine and good, but who says a brokered convention precludes an eventual outcome that is even more united behind a candidate? No one but those who actually like Romney and think he can win should be wary of the prospect of a brokered convention.

7. Rand Paul is still on the inside. I have always wondered why he endorsed Romney when he did. His father was still in the race, still picking up delegates. Why not wait until after Romney is actually the nominee? He promised, when running for office in Kentucky that he would support the 2012 GOP nominee, and it seems he kept his promise. Not to mention that his endorsement gave the Paul folks at least some leverage that they otherwise wouldn’t have. But until Romney is actually the nominee, Rand Paul is free to renege without actually breaking his original promise. This could come in the form of a vote of no confidence. If Rand and perhaps others (Maine Governor Paul LePage, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, perhaps) were to rescind their endorsements at a crucial point (for Rand, this could be his floor speech), it could spell disaster for the establishment and Romney-Ryan. But not necessarily for the GOP’s chances in November.

8. Even if they are unable to command enough of the vote to deny Romney the nomination, those few anti-Romney delegates and alternates at the convention, were they to stage a walkout before the first ballot, could ruin the convention. Especially if they are enough to destroy the quorum.

9. Ron Paul may yet be recognized as having a plurality in five states, in which case, his name could be put to nomination. While the vote for him may pale in comparison to the vote for Romney, his name being available for the first round of voting could deny Romney more votes than he would otherwise be denied. On the other had, the Contests Committee has decided to strip Paul of his plurality in two of five states. The Credentials Committee has upheld one of these. But who knows, maybe something will happen. Maybe someone has an ace up their sleeve. Maybe enough Romney delegates will be replaced by Paul alternates to give him a plurality in five states. Maybe there is some way some Gingrich and Santorum voters will nominate Paul so as to give him the plurality. If I am correct, you don’t actually have to have won delegates, and they don’t actually have to be your supporters to nominate you. If the majority of delegates from just two of Gingrich and Santorum’s combined plurality-states decide to nominate Paul, it could give Paul the five states needed. Maybe with the right amount of stalling and maneuvering something will happen. Unfortunately, this may not work with the above mentioned walkout.

10. But what about a walkout after Romney wins the nomination? This may seem to be in poor sport, but it might just send the right messages to the right people at the right time. I don’t know what would result from it, but I doubt it would be nothing.

11. Romney needs Ron Paul’s endorsement more than anyone else’s if he is to win in November. Grover Norquist, for one, has said as much. But the establishment, were they to admit this, would have to make some serious, and I mean serious, concessions. This is not going to happen, of course. Not the least of reasons being that the establishment may not even want to win in November. Certainly not at the price of limiting their interventionism, mercantilism, monetarism, and corporativism. So Romney will not get the Ron Paul endorsement, and as a consequence will be that much less likely to defeat Obama in November. Of course, Romney might lose even with the Ron Paul endorsement, because, other factors aside, many Paul supporters would still not vote for Romney.

12. Some elements of the establishment may actually want a brokered convention. Romney is like that. I would have cold feet too. But if it happens, they might not be able to control it. Which is why they will stay in the mainstream fold until they are given more reason to despise Romney (a vote of no confidence by some key endorsers might do the trick) or expect someone else of their liking will pick up the pieces.

Of course, this is mostly just fantasy. But the Paul people have pulled off some astonishing feats in the past. Why underestimate them now?

Like this:

Two days ago a good friend of mine sent me a link to an article that was making the case that the lesser of two evils is actually Obama, and not Romney. It was written by a hardcore conservative. I am not saying that just because he claims to be and I believe him, but because the site the piece was published on is stevedeace.com. Steve Deace is a Bible-thumping, God-fearing, Constitutional conservative. He has palled around with former Governor Mike Huckabee. The site has also had kind words to say about Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and even Ron Paul (though he likes to refer to his supporters as “anarchists”, which is only partly true) this election cycle. On the article I left a comment, and has been my habit in several of my most recent posts, I thought it would be worth publishing on my blog. Mine isn’t the only one worth reading. If you read the comments there and on sites like FreeRepublic (which I despise) you will know that there are plenty of non-Ron Paul conservatives out there who are fed up with Romney and would like to dump him at the convention. Keep in mind that I tailored my comment for a less than libertarian crowd.

[Referring to similarities between Romney and Obama not mentioned by the article’s author]:

And how about on foreign policy? Some people would say that this is their biggest difference, but I think, like everything else, it is all rhetoric. Obama may even be a little more incompetent than Romney in these regards. But then, that doesn’t mean much because it is the troops on the ground, not the commander in chief, doing all the work. So, while Obama’s incompetence may seem like it harms us, it really hasn’t had an effect on his ability to fight the “war on terror”. Just look at Osama. And how about them drones? And the TSA? And the DHS? And NDAA? Bush would be so jealous at the list of Obama’s victories, even if those victories are tainted by Obama’s multi-culturalism and UN sycophancy. We know that Obama and Romney agree on Syria. And even though Obama is not big on Israel, we know his stance toward Iran is about the same as Romney’s. A little less unilateral, sure.

Mitt’s new running mate, so-called fiscal conservative, and alleged budget-cutter Paul Ryan won’t even touch defense spending (which is six times that of China’s and 52% of the world’s defense spending. That means that five percent of the world’s population spends a little more money on “defense” than the other ninety-five percent!). Tom Coburn, a counterpart in the senate, and by no means a cut-and-run kind of guy isn’t afraid to make meaningful cuts to the Pentagon’s nonessential programs. Like planes they will never fly, agenda-driven social programs the likes of which are found in any federal department, and cartel behavior on the part of certain protected (ironically for conservatives, from the “ravages” of the free market) firms and industries with their no-bid contracts and ill-gotten favors and subsidies.

And how about spending? Experience should tell us that, almost without exception, each new presidential term, regardless of party, absolutely DAWRFS the preceding one in terms of the tab they run up. We know for sure that Romney 1 will be a much bigger spender than Obama 1. Obama 2 will also be a bigger spender than Obama 1. But if you asked me who would be a bigger spender, Obama 2 or Romney 1, I wouldn’t be able to answer. Nor would you unless you were bluffing or stupid. But the good thing about Obama 2 is that once its over, its over. With Romney 1, we will more than likely have to suffer through Romney 2 as well.

Its four more years of 100% big bad government or 8 more years of 99% big bad government. Followed, of course, by another Democrat president because they will blame conservatives for Romney’s mistakes, even though they were by no means a result of his conservatism, a quality which he lacks. The Democrats can just play the blame game like they did with Bush and we’ll get 12 to 16 years (two terms for Romney, during which the GOP and much of the base will go back to sleep, plus one or two for the Democrat that will exploit his mistakes) of tyranny. In the event of another Obama term, as bad as that sounds, at least its only four more years till we have another shot at an at least tolerable conservative.

What is the winner of the Veepstakes record on spending? Dismal. Paul Ryan was one of Bush’s rubber stamp yes-men when the President was running up the deficit to no end. But that’s okay, it wasn’t popular to follow the Constitution and act responsibly back then. There was no Tea Party to keep these crooks in line. So lets give him a pass.

And then there is monetary policy. Some say that Romney opposes stimulus and bailouts. And indeed he has said as much in front of crowds and cameras, quite recently. But any look at his record, including his support for TARP and his favorable comments on Helicopter Ben Bernanke will show you otherwise. And I have yet to hear one utterance on the Fed’s policy of lowering the interest rate (which caused the housing crash in the first place), granting favors to cronies outside of official bailouts, and printing money outside of official stimulus, namely quantitative easing.

If, when reading this comment you said to yourself, “hey, this guy sounds like a Ron Paul supporter”, you would be right.